DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Justice Office Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Justice Office Of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Concerning Issues Relating to the Central Intelligence Agency's Use of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" on Suspected Terrorists July 29, 2009 NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, CLASSIFIED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. ACLU-RDI 5021 p.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 I. BACKGROUND 12 A. The Office of Professional Responsibility 12 B. This Investigation 13 C. The Office of Legal Coun Sel- 15 D. OPR's Analytical Framework and Professional . Standards 18 1. OPR's Analytical Framework 18 2. Professional Standards 19 a. The Duty to Exercise Independent Professional Judgment and to Render Candid Advice 21 b. The Duty of Thoroughness and Care 22 3. Analytical Approach 24 II. FACTS 25 A. Subject and Witness Backgrounds 25 B. The Bybee Memo and the Classified Bybee Memo (August 1, 2002) 30 1. The CIA Interrogation Program 30 2. Drafting the Bybee Memo 43 3. Key Conclusions of the Bybee Memo 67 4. Key Conclusions of the Classified Bybee Memo 68 5. The Yoo Letter 69 ACLU-RDI 5021 p.2 C. Military Interrogation, the March 14, 2003 Yoo Memo to DOD, and the DOD Working Group Report 70 1. Guantanamo and the Military's Interrogation of Detainees 70 2. Drafting the Yoo Memo 75 3. Key Conclusions of the Yoo Memo 80 4. The Working Group Report 81 D. Implementation of the CIA Interrogation Program 82 1. Abu Zubaydah 83 2. Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nishiri 85 3. Khalid Sheik Muhammed 87 4. 88 5. CIA Referrals to the Department 90 6. Other Findings of the CIA OIG Report 95 E. Reaffirmation of the CIA Program 97 1. The Question of "Humane Treatment" 97 2. The "Bullet Points" 100 3. The Leahy Letter 104 4. The CIA Request for Reaffirmation 106 F. AAG Goldsmith - Withdrawal of OLC's Advice on Interrogation 110 1. The NSA Matter 110 2. The Withdrawal of the Yoo Memo 112 3. The CIA OIG Report and the Bullet Points Controversy 114 4. Goldsmith's Draft Revisions to the Yoo Memo 117 5. The Withdrawal of the Bybee Memo 121 ACLU-RDI 5021 p.3 G. Case-by-Case Approvals and The Levin Memo 124 H. The Bradbury Memos 132 1. The 2005 Bradbury Memo (May 10, 2005) 133 2. The Combined Techniques Memo (May 10, 2005) 137 3. The Article 16 Memo (May 30, 2005) 145 4. The 2007 Bradbury Memo 151 a. Background 151 b. The 2007 Memo 154 II. Analysis 159 A. The Bybee Memo's Flaws Consistently Favored a Permissive Viewofthe Torture Statute 159 1. Specific Intent 161 2. Severe Pain 176 3. Ratification History of the CAT 184 4. United States Judicial Interpretation 186 a. Implementation of. CAT Article 3 186 b. The Torture Victim Protection Act 187 S. International Decisions 190 a. Ireland v. United Kingdom 191 b. Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel 193 6. The Commander-in-Chief Power and Possible Defenses to Torture 196 a. The President's Commander-in-Chief Power 199 b. Criminal Defenses to Torture 207 (1) The Necessity Defense 207 (2) Self Defense 220 TORE NO ACLU-RDI 5021 p.4 7. Conclusion 226 B. The Legal Analysis Set Forth in the Bybee Memo Was Inconsistent with the Professional Standards Applicable to Department of Justice Attorneys 226 C. Analysis of the Classified Bybee Memo (August 1, 2002) 234 D. The Yoo Letter 238 1. Violation of CAT 238 2. Prosecution Under the Rome Statute 239 E. Analysis of the Bradbury Memos 241 F. Individual Responsibility 251 1. John Yoo 251. 2. Jay Bybee 255 3. Patrick Philbin 257 4. 258 5. Steven Bradbury 258 6. Other Department Officials 259 G. Institutional Concerns 259 CONCLUSION 260 ATTACHMENT A: Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Timeline ATTACHMENT B: Glossary of Acronyms ATTACHMENT C: Glossary of Names Used in OPR Report ATTACHMENT D: Chronological List of OLC Memoranda on Use of Enhanced Techniques RE '1 1PCS 11 -iv- ACLU-RDI 5021 p.5 TOP e1 - nP e ATTACHMENT E: Memorandum for Attorneys of the Office Re: Best Practices for OLC Opinions, authored by Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, May 16, 2005 (Best Practices Memo) ATTACHMENT F: Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel, December 21, 2004 (Guiding Principles) ATTACHMENT G: District of Columbia Rule of Professional Responsibility 2.1. ATTACHMENT H: District of Columbia Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.1. ACLU-RDI 5021 p.6 RN INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY In June 2004, an August 1, 2002 memorandum from then Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jay S. Bybee of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House Counsel, was leaked to the press. The memorandum was captioned "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A" (the Bybee Memo), and had been drafted primarily by OLC's then Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo. The memorandum examined a criminal statute prohibiting torture, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (the torture statute), in the context of interrogations conducted outside the United States. One of the primary areas of discussion in the Bybee Memo was the statute's description of what constitutes "torture." The definition contained in the statute is as follows: (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or ACLU-RDI 5021 p.7 (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt . profoundly the senses Or:personality. 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The Bybee Memo concluded that under the torture statute, torture: covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is sufficient range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture. Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's Commander- in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional. Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self- defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability. Bybee Memo at 46. Some commentators, law professors, and other members of the legal community were highly critical of the Bybee Memo. For example, Harold Koh, then Dean of Yale Law School, characterized the memorandum as "blatantly ACLU-RDI 5021 p.8 wrong" and added: "[i]t's just erroneous legal analysis." Edward Alden, Dismay at Attempt to Find Legal Justification for Torture, Financial Times, June 10, 2004. A past chairman of the international human rights committee of the New York City Bar Association, Scott Horton, stated that "the government lawyers involved in preparing the documents could and should face professional sanctions." Id. Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said: "It's egregiously bad. It's very low level, it's very weak, embarrassingly weak, just short of reckless." Adam Liptak, Legal Scholars Criticize Memos on Torture, New York Times, June 25, 2004 at A14. In the same article, Martin Flaherty, an expert in international human rights law at Fordham University, commented, "The scholarship is very clever and original but also extreme, one-sided and poorly supported by the legal authority relied on." Id. Other commentators observed that the Bybee Memo did not address important Supreme Court precedent and that it ignored portions of the Convention Against Terrorism (CAT) that contradicted its thesis. Id. One article suggested that the Bybee Memo deliberately ignored adverse authority, and commented that "a lawyer who is writing an opinion letter is ethically bound to be frank." Kathleen Clark and Julie Mertus, Tor luring Law; The Justice Department's Legal Contortions on Interrogation, Washington Post, June 20, 2004 at B3; see R. Jeffrey Smith, Slim Legal Grounds for Torture Memos, Washington Post, July 4, 2004 at Al2. Other critics suggested that the Bybee Memo was drafted to support a pre-ordained result. Mike Allen and Dana Priest, Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush, Washington Post, June 9, 2004 at A3. Similar criticism was raised by a group of more than 100 lawyers, law school professors, and retired judges, who called for a thorough investigation of how the Bybee Memo and other, related OLC memoranda came to be written.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christopher H
    Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Chairman Nadler, Ranking Minority Member Franks, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Christopher H. Schroeder, and I am currently a professor of law and public policy studies at Duke University, as well as of counsel with the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. In the past, I have had the privilege to serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, including a period of time in 1996-97 when I was the acting head of that office. Before that, I have also had the privilege of serving on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including as its Chief Counsel in 1992-93. As you know, the Office of Legal Counsel’s primary responsibility is to provide sound legal advice to other components of the Executive Branch, especially the President and the White House, so that the President can meet his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions
    Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions 38th Annual Commercial Law & Bankruptcy Seminar McCall, Idaho Feb. 6, 2020; 2:30 P.M. Bill Rochelle • Editor-at-Large American Bankruptcy Institute [email protected] • 703. 894.5909 © 2020 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22014 • www.abi.org American Bankruptcy Institute • 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 1 www.abi.org Table of Contents Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................ 4 Decided Last Term ........................................................................................................................... 5 Nonjudicial Foreclosure Is Not Subject to the FDCPA, Supreme Court Rules ............................. 6 Licensee May Continue Using a Trademark after Rejection, Supreme Court Rules .................. 10 Court Rejects Strict Liability for Discharge Violations ............................................................... 15 Supreme Court Decision on Arbitration Has Ominous Implications for Bankruptcy ................. 20 Decided This Term ......................................................................................................................... 24 Supreme Court Rules that ‘Unreservedly’ Denying a Lift-Stay Motion Is Appealable .............. 25 Supreme Court Might Allow FDCPA Suits More than a Year After Occurrence ....................... 28 Cases Argued So Far This Term ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Departmentalism and Nonjudicial Interpretation: Who Determines Constitutional Meaning?
    08_JOHNSEN_FINALFMT.DOC 11/16/2004 12:21 PM FUNCTIONAL DEPARTMENTALISM AND NONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: WHO DETERMINES CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING? DAWN E. JOHNSEN* I INTRODUCTION One of the vibrant constitutional debates at the turn of the twenty-first cen- tury concerns enduring questions about the appropriate role of nonjudicial enti- ties—especially Congress and the President—in the development of constitu- tional meaning.1 The Supreme Court, of course, asserted its own authority to act on its interpretations of the Constitution two hundred years ago in Marbury v. Madison.2 Although academic debate over judicial review continues, the Court’s authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and the President today is integral to our constitutional system. Judicial review, though, is distinct from judicial supremacy. As growing numbers of commentators note, the Marbury Court claimed relatively limited interpretive authority for the courts: to interpret and apply the Constitution only in the course of resolving justiciable cases and controversies. The Court did not purport to resolve whether and when fidelity to the Constitution re- quires Congress and the President to adhere to the Court’s interpretations as they exercise their own constitutional powers. Congress and the President, too, are constitutionally obligated to uphold, and thus must first interpret, the Constitution. How should they approach this responsibility? Should they follow relevant Supreme Court precedent, even precedent with which they disagree, or may they take official action premised Copyright © 2004 by Dawn E. Johnsen This Article is also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp. * Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington.
    [Show full text]
  • The Love Song of J. Anthony Kennedy
    THE LOVE SONG OF J. ANTHONY KENNEDY Steven M. Klepper† HE JUNE 2015 MARRIAGE equality decision in Obergefell v. Hodges1 fell during the same month as the 100th anniversary of the pub- lication of T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. There has been a great recent debate over the value of a liberal arts Tdegree. I graduated from Goucher College, and I can tell you that a liberal arts degree can lead to spending your leisure time doing things like writing a Prufrock spoof from the perspective of a sitting justice. Whether that helps or hurts the cause, I do not know. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.2 • • • † Steven Klepper is a principal at Kramon & Graham, P.A. and editor-in-chief of the Maryland Appellate Blog. 1 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). 2 Eliot began Prufrock with a quote (in Italian) from THE INFERNO. I’ll begin with a quote from Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Publius” in THE FEDERALIST NO. 78. The reason for these footnotes is that I suspect most or all of this piece will become hopelessly dated in the next ten years, and I wish to be able to inform the future reader and my future self what I was thinking. 19 GREEN BAG 2D 101 Steven M.
    [Show full text]
  • June 23, 2014 Confirm Pamela Harris to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Member
    Officers Chair Judith L. Lichtman June 23, 2014 National Partnership for Women & Families Confirm Pamela Harris to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Vice Chairs Jacqueline Pata Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Member: National Congress of American Indians Thomas A. Saenz On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we write to express Mexican American Legal our strong support for the confirmation of Pamela Ann Harris to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. At every stage in her career, Pamela Harris has distinguished Defense and Educational Fund herself through her outstanding intellectual credentials, her independence of thought, and her Hilary Shelton strong respect for the rule of law, establishing herself beyond question as qualified and ready NAACP to serve on the court. In addition, she has demonstrated an unwavering integrity and an Secretary outstanding commitment to public service. Barry Rand AARP The Leadership Conference believes Pamela Harris will be an impartial, thoughtful, and Treasurer highly-respected addition to the court. She graduated summa cum laude from Yale College in 1985 and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. After law school, she was a Lee A. Saunders law clerk for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She American Federation of State, spent one year as an associate at Shea & Gardner (now Goodwin Proctor LLP) before County & Municipal Employees clerking for Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court. From 2010-2012, she served at the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Board of Directors Legal Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists
    William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 9-11-2020 2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary Law School, "2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists" (2020). Supreme Court Preview. 295. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/295 Copyright c 2020 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview Biographies of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/ibrl/scp/2020/notebook/bios/index.php ROBERT BARNES - Washington Post Robert Barnes has spent most of his career at The Washington Post, as a reporter and editor. He joined the paper to cover politics in 1987, and has covered campaigns at the presidential, congressional and gubernatorial level. He served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor, deputy national editor in charge of domestic issues and the Supreme Court, and national political editor. He returned to reporting to cover the Supreme Court in November 2006, and has done so since then, with a brief break to cover the conclusion of the 2008 presidential campaign. He covered the Supreme Court nominations of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack Obama, 2014 Nominations Submitted to The
    Administration of Barack Obama, 2014 Nominations Submitted to the Senate November 21, 2014 The following list does not include promotions of members of the Uniformed Services, nominations to the Service Academies, or nominations of Foreign Service Officers. Submitted January 6 Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice Stanley F. Birch, Jr., retired. Carolyn B. McHugh, of Utah, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit, vice Michael R. Murphy, retired. Michelle T. Friedland, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Raymond C. Fisher, retired. Nancy L. Moritz, of Kansas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit, vice Deanell Reece Tacha, retired. John B. Owens, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Stephen S. Trott, retired. David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Michael Boudin, retired. Robin S. Rosenbaum, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice Rosemary Barkett, resigned. Julie E. Carnes, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice James Larry Edmondson, retired. Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Fortunato P. Benavides, retired. Rosemary Márquez, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, vice Frank R. Zapata, retired. Pamela L. Reeves, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, vice Thomas W. Phillips, retiring.
    [Show full text]
  • Pamela Harris Nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    Pamela Harris Nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit President Obama nominated Pamela Ann Harris to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 8, 2014. If confirmed, Harris will fill the seat vacated by Judge Andre M. Davis, who assumed senior status on February 28, 2014. Currently, Harris is a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a senior advisor to its Supreme Court Institute. Upon her nomination, President Obama observed that “[t]hroughout her career, Pamela Harris has shown unwavering integrity and an outstanding commitment to public service.”1 Biography Pamela Ann Harris was born in 1962 and grew up in Bethesda, Maryland, where she attended Western Junior High School and Walt Whitman High School. She received her B.A. summa cum laude from Yale College in 1985, and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. During Law School, Harris served as the Current Topics Editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review. After law school, Harris served as law clerk for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She then spent one year, from 1991 to 1992, as an associate at Shea & Gardner (now Goodwin Procter LLP) before clerking for Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court. After her clerkship, Harris joined the Department of Justice, where she worked as an Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to1996. In 1996, Harris joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she received the Harvey Levin Memorial Teaching Award in 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 4/28/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 4/28/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 4/28/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Dennis Jacobs (Snr) Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2017 Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration David Fontana George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fontana, David, Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration (March 28, 2017). Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2017-24; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-24. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2942297 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FONTANA – FORTHCOMING – WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW (2017) 3/28/2017 COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DAVID FONTANA Introduction ................................................................... 101 I. Naming ..................................................................... 108 II. Numbing ................................................................... 124 III. Numbers .................................................................. 130 Conclusion .................................................................... 138 INTRODUCTION During his eight years in office, President Barack Obama changed
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups
    Advance The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups Table of ConTenTs Signing Statements and the President’s Authority to Refuse to Enforce the Law Neil J. Kinkopf Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Labor Relations Paradigms James J. Brudney And Justice For All? Litigation, Politics, and the State of Marriage Equality Today Suzanne B. Goldberg The “Crack/Powder” Disparity: Can the International Race Convention Provide a Basis for Relief? Nkechi Taifa The Merits of the Proposed Journalist-Source Privilege Geoffrey R. Stone The Canon of Constitutional Avoidance and Executive Branch Legal Interpretation in the War on Terror Trevor W. Morrison Prison Litigation Reform Act—A Proposal for Closing the Loophole for Rapists Deborah M. Golden Preserving and Expanding the Right to Vote: Ranked-Choice Voting David Cobb, Patrick Barrett and Caleb Kleppner Health Care Provider Refusals to Treat, Prescribe, Refer or Inform: Professionalism and Conscience R. Alta Charo 1333 H St., NW, 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 www.ACSLaw.org 202-393-6181 Copyright © 2007 American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Advance The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups Table of ConTenTs 1 Introduction Signing Statements and the President’s Authority to Refuse to 5 Enforce the Law Neil J. Kinkopf Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for 11 Changing Labor Relations Paradigms James J. Brudney And Justice For All? Litigation, Politics, and the State of Marriage 33 Equality Today Suzanne B. Goldberg The “Crack/Powder” Disparity: Can the International Race 53 Convention Provide a Basis for Relief? Nkechi Taifa The Merits of the Proposed Journalist-Source Privilege 67 Geoffrey R.
    [Show full text]